Skakel v. Murphy
First MOTION to Stay re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 30 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment, 34 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by Michael C. Skakel.Responses due by 1/29/2009 (Seeley, Hope)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT MICHAEL C. SKAKEL Petitioner, v. PETER J. MURPHY, Respondent. : : : : : : : CASE NO. 3:07 CV 1625 (PCD)
JANUARY 8, 2009
PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR STAY AND ABEYANCE Pursuant to the stay and abeyance rule set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005), the Petitioner, Michael C. Skakel, hereby moves for a stay and abeyance of his Amended Petition For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus in order to permit the Petitioner time to exhaust the unexhausted claims that are set forth in his Amended Petition. In support hereof, the Petitioner has filed a Memorandum of Law.
THE PETITIONER, MICHAEL C. SKAKEL BY /s/__________ ___________ HUBERT J. SANTOS Federal Bar No. ct00069 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org HOPE C. SEELEY Federal Bar No. ct 4863 Email: email@example.com SANTOS & SEELEY, P.C. 51 Russ Street Hartford, CT 06106 Tel: (860) 249-6548 Fax:(860) 724-5533
CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that on January 8, 2009, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by email to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System. Michael O'Hare, Esq. Office of the Chief State's Attorney 300 Corporate Place Rocky Hill, CT 06067 Tel. No. (860) 258-5887 Fax No. (860) 258-5968 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Federal Bar No. ct 05318
_/s/___________________________ HOPE C. SEELEY
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?